I thought President Obama did a pretty good job with comedian Jay Leno last night. With some pundits already pronouncing his administration a failure, he has the moxie to appear on a late night talk show. For the last eight years, presidential visits to California have been about as frequent as Bigfoot sightings. You can diss all those rumors about Treasury secretary Tim Geithner resigning anytime soon. After 59 days in the White House his bowling score is up to 129. All of his favorite picks for the Final Four basketball championships were in politically sensitive swing states (North Carolina, Indiana, Iowa). While playing basketball, he doesn’t get knocked down as much while the secret service is watching, guns at hand. Obama still has the magic touch, speaking with the deliberateness of a trial lawyer, but with the folksy charm of your local barber. One thing is for sure though. Your taxes are going up, baby.www.madhedgefundtrader.com.

The paradox of America is we are a middle ground behaving, believing country with an emphasis on pragmatism, torn by loud loonies on the sides. There will be no compromising with the idealogues, but for the most part people don't care and are far to busy with there own lives to impose on others.

Considering the type of medical research and applications that are being developed and applied I see no deep motivated reason to reject the experiments that allowed nazi Germany to progress in medical applications asuming their basic point of view which is basically that the ends justify the means and that there are sectors of the population that are not worthy of protection for whatever ideological reasons be they jews, unborn infants, handicapped or in time useless and costly old age population. With these principles in mind definately there is a solution for the cost of the retirement problems of an aging population. Assisted suicide!

I believe that Dawkins acts on the evidence, there is no hard evidence that there is or is not a god, the way he talks about this subject is fully in compliance with that believe.
Sorry personal evidence is not real evidence, it just that, personal and could be indicative of any number of things including mental illness. If it is just a numbers game I take it that you also believe in little green me, after apparently about a third of Americans believe that we have been visited by aliens therefore by you measure of things it must be true. I would think that millions of people have indeed attempted the “god if you exist please show me” approach, millions are still waiting.
The evidence I see is of organised religions blessing suicide bombers and terrorists, protecting child rapists, spreading lies and half truths, subjugating women, in fact doing whatever it takes to keep them in positions of power and authority.
And just remind us what is the figure for the top rank of scientists in Europe and the US believes in any sort of god? Considerable less than 10%, yours my friend is the god of gaps; the more we understand the less we believe in the or need the supernatural
What a surprise that the religious paint all atheists, (by the way I am agnostic on the subject) with same brush, of course we all spend our days trawling the internet for porn, because as the religious have so often demonstrated by their actions, (see above), they are the only people with any morals…?.
I think you miss the point Dawkins is trying to make about the likely hood of there being any god(s), it is impossible to say that supernatural beings do not exist therefore there is vanishing small chance that they do, he is just being honest.

Greentiger:"itsastickup ; another..who has read nothing that Dawkins has ever written..he has NEVER said that he is an atheist, he accepts that there is a vanishing small chance that there is a god, in the same way that there is just a tiny chance that a chocolate teapot is orbiting the sun. "

You've presumed upon me. Not only have I read plenty of Dawkins material but I didn't call him an atheist. The irony is that if he were truly an agnostic he would not condemn religion in such vociferous terms. He claims to be an agnostic but behaves as an atheist. What would you say that means, greentiger? Atheism strictly defined as "Belief that there is no God" is by its nature presumptive, rather like yourself, and irrational as the matter is unproven. (the Wikipedia mishmash definitions of atheist and agnostic are nonsense: refer to the OED and Encyclodpia Britinnaca for the proper definitions).

He claims that there is absolutely no evidence of a supreme being. But this depends on who you talk to. For example, my uncle who was a nuclear phycisist, before his recent premature dematerialisation, said "In my work I see the finger prints of God everywhere". Interestingly a survey a few years ago showed that many more physicists than biologists believe in a spiritual reality (not necessirly the christian god). The firgure for the physicists was 40%. What do you think is the reason for that, Greentiger?

Even if you decide on Dawkins as an accurate source of scientific info there is the problem of personal witness: people claiming to have direct personal knowledge of a god is most certainly evidence of such a being. It may not be proof, but it is evidence. Since objective knowledge of such a being is by its nature personal then evidence, rather than proof, is as good as it gets. It should at least encourage the open-minded non-believer to attempt comms: "God, if you exist please show me".

Do you really think that the atheist, with all his unjustifiable presumptions and condemnations, is likely to be approached by God with proof, while he sits in his chair, quite possibly browsing for porn, saying "I'll believe it when I see it". Fat chance.

In anycase why do you presume I am a fundamentalist, like Dawkins? I don't believe in a literal transaltion of the Bible, I reckon evolution is how God did it, I believe non-christians can go to heaven (by Christ's power, mind you), I don't wish to behead the enemy indeed I pray for my enemies.

Dawkins claim of a vanishing small chance that there is a god is invention: there is no way of calculating the probability, and the existence of personal witness demontrates that he is conveniently being selective.

itsastickup ; another religious fundamentalist who has read nothing that Dawkins has ever written, or indeed listened to anything he has ever said, he has NEVER said that he is an atheist, he accepts that there is a vanishing small chance that there is a god, in the same way that there is just a tiny chance that a chocolate teapot is orbiting the sun.

I am just so glad that in Europe people like you are becoming about as rare as the orbiting tea pot

polonski:"It seems to me that if Obama had any illusions about bipartisanship, the budget vote swept them away from the President."

Obama has the power: he makes the offers, not the Republicans. If they rejected it then the onus is on Obama.

"After 8 years of ...extreme right republicanism "

They've actually been quite liberal. You've forgotten the past. 50 years ago democrats were more rightwing. Bush did make some attempt at straddling left and right, satisfying no one, in which Democrats cooperated, including Iraq. His only rabidness was in the matter of moral scruples, which are a matter of conscience: he would have destroyed his integrity had he done anything less. Even if you disagree with him on that point he still did the right thing.

It seems to me that if Obama had any illusions about bipartisanship, the budget vote swept them away from the President.
After 8 years of fierce, rabid (also shameful and quite a few times illegal) extreme right republicanism (not to count a stolen presidential election), do democrats really need to pamper republican "hurt feelings"?
The USA elected a liberal President with a clear liberal program. Bipartisanship is, I think, for unusual and dramatic circumstances where all the country has to come together (did democrats fail the nation on 9/11? NO. Could they have been critical of Bush national security serious flaws on that occasion? YES, but they did not)
Let liberal presidents govern as liberals. Don't republican presidents get a fit of laughter whenever any bipartisanship is asked from them (asking the democratic opposition to vote for PATRIOT ACT doesn't count, does it?)
Finally, I'd like to quote Mr. Vincent Bugliosi, arguably one of the best lawyers of the country: "If the republican politicians on the far right had a patriotic bone in their body (which they don't)..."
Please have a look at NO ISLAND OF SANITY and BETRAYAL OF AMERICA. You will quickly find out what lack of patriotism Mr. bugliosi is talking about.

Urgsmurgs:"Bible quotes are no aceptable basis for any policy decission."

Neither is Dawkins propaganda. Dawkins cultivates the idea that evolution and the Bible are mutually exclusive but most of Christianity has no dogma of biblical literalism and can read Genesis with an interpretive eye.

Atheism (strictly speaking "to believe there is no god" and not "to lack belief") is presumptive (and irrational) since as even Dawkins admits it is impossible to prove the non-existence of a god. Presumption is the antithesis of science.

David-M; "Perhaps you don't even know that embryonic stem cells implants have cured nothing and will NEVER cure anything due to their intrinsic instability and cancerous nature"

Well, David, I’m sure glad no one told that to Edison on his second to last try to make a light bulb. I’d have to read The Economist by candle light.

------

“If heat rises, Heaven must be hotter than Hell.” – Stephen Wright

-----

Bfordc, speaking of Mr. Christ: “And since those who love Him, obey Him, He was intolerant of anyone who didn't love.”

As I understand it, he was also intolerant of plenty of people who do love, including homosexuals; hospital workers, police officers and others who dare work on Sunday; etc..
Oh, and let’s not forget the cardinal sins: Also those who love sex, food, money, relaxation, anger, competition or themselves. Jealousy, though, is okay by example, shown in Exodus 20:5, “You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I the Lord your God am a jealous God,…?

------

“A genital wart is also a living thing. If it’s going to irritate you for life, burn it off.” – Doug Stanhope

greentiger:"The arrogance of the religious fundamentalists never ceases to amaze, all you need is faith, NEVER let the facts get in the way of MY idea about what is wrong and right"

Well, it may be arrogance in many cases but take the agnostic view:

Religious faith is defined as the act of assent (agreement) after a supreme being has proven its own existence and shown its nature (good etc). The Devil is said to believe but not assent.

Now if that is really what has happened then it wouldn't be surprising that certain religious types would reject such things as evolution since evolution is portrayed as being incompatible with the Judaic god, usually because of the protestant dogma of biblical literalism (protestants are vocal but are a small part of Christianity). With that proof nor would it be surprising that they stick so tenaciously to their belief despite the unpleasantnesses of life.

It also isn't surprising that religious types might hold science at arms length when scientists talk of proof, since a supreme being proving its own existence is likely to be a much higher standard of proof than that of science, non-material though it may be.

Religions even claim that a supreme being gives objective knowledge with a mechanism that self-evidently would give objective knowledge (research baptism), which no scientist or mathematicisn would dare claim due to the problem of insanity. I don't know of any exceptions to this among the differing religions. Additionaly most religions are not fully exclusivist (except fanatics and Protestants), allowing for tohers ot go to heaven. Even Islam talks of "People of the Book" as requiring some respect. (Catholics teaching is that a soul that leans to God can be baptised by desire through Christ's body/Church, yet without knowing anything of Christianity.)

Granted that individualised proof does not satisfy the scientists need for demonstrable and repeatable evidence: but that's a practical problem not a philosophical one.

(The definition of faith as "Belief without knowledge" is not religious and is unfairly presumptive, all things considered. There are many bogus definitions: see Kiergaard and Pascal for more. They are Christian but got it wrong.)

In the case of embryo experiments: some Christians have it that conception is the moment of a full human soul's creation: and so must be inviolate (ie. Catholics, which is why they insisted that Chimeras should be brought to term). It has little to do with science, rather the sanctity (specialness, if you like) of human life, which isn't a scientific concept. Effectively, such an embryo would be no different in dignity and rights to a fully grown adult (let alone a child).

I hope you can see then that the Christian position is not necessarily all arrogance.

As for naturally lost 'conceptos' and miscarriage: that isn't a matter of our deliberate action, and so isn't a moral issue for us but one for a supreme being to answer, so to speak.

beakermus:
I find your comment very interesting too. And I agree with you - eventually, the effectiveness of adult stem cell use will render embryonic stem cell uses as less successful and very expensive (from an economic and a moral point of view).
What Obama did is not really the end of the world - he allowed public funds to be used to finance the already legal embryonic stem cell research.

The problem is that, from a Christian and scientific point of view, many lives are being lost in the process, before those "market forces" you speak of divert funds to both adult stem cell research and many other kinds of research that can potentially benefit us all. I dislike the fact of being somehow directly funding murder while paying taxes.

I have read various comments complaining of the lack of update in the Bible, and I am really sorry that many people seem to get the wrong idea of Christianity.
Christians are not, in general, hypocritical beings that interpret the Bible they way it seems better for them at the time. The Bible was written by men inspired by God, and the contents of it are timeless - morals values do not need updating.

And those that complain about Christians supporting wars and killings but opposing stem cell research are wrong in the nature of their argument: What you are basically saying is that since some Christians support something that is wrong, they cannot complain about other wrong-doings. Both wars and embryonic stem cell research are wrong because they end up killing innocent people, no matter what some support or not. This argument does not justify the killings involved in embryonic stem cell research anyway.

General comment: Those writing here should stop defining those opposing embryonic stem cell research as "the religious right" or the "conservatives", because by doing so they try to undermine people who oppose such research by tagging them as intolerant and outdated people that oppose scientific development. I voted for Obama, I do not belong to any of those stereotyped groups mentioned above, and still, I oppose embryonic stem cell research.

Berus:"[Bush] didn't hesitate to cross the moral boundary of attacking Iraq and killing hundreds of thousands of civilians"

Twisting the Islamic bombings of their own peoples to being Bush's responsibility is crossing a moral boundary.

There's much to fault Bush for, but not that. In any case much of the US was in favour at the time, and there was a reasonable case for it (through bogus french intelligence). Blaming Bush now is easy but lazy. The French have more responsibility, and yet utterly forgotten.

Dr Joe"In a free country people can hold different beliefs and faiths Those of the religious right are absolutely entitled to have nothing to do with stem cell research and refuse to use any treatments that may arise from such research
They should not be entitled to deny such benefits to those who do not share their beliefs/view"

That view supports Bush's no state funding of embryonic research. It also supports small government. Keep in mind that taxation is public.

Godd riddance to Mr Bush! He said that harvesting embryonic stem cells crossed a moral boundary that “would support the taking of innocent human life in the hope of finding medical benefits for others”. He didn't hesitate to cross the moral boundary of attacking Iraq and killing hundreds of thousands of civilians, hence "taking innocent human life in the hope of finding economic benefits for others”. How hypocritical of his.

I found your comment very interesting. From what you say though, does it actually matter whether Obama has lifted the ban on embryonic stem cell research?

If using adult cells is that much more effective than using embryonic cells then "market forces" in science will channel funding towards research using adult cells. I know that science may not allocate funds as efficiently (and apolitically) as that, but surely over time it'll become clear that there's a better alternative to using embryonic cells and then the whole moral debate becomes redundant, saving everyone a lot of huffing and puffing!